NT Ombudsman helps conceal institutionalized racism and political persecution

The Ombudsman ignores my complaints and threatens State reprisal to victims of racist violence and cowardice.

Latest letter and response...

Our Ref: P00-01/0217

Dear Mr Lambe Re: Complaints against Police

I refer to your letter e-Mail dated 10 May 2001 and again apologise for the delay in providing a substantive response.

17 September 2001

Peter: You allege that NT Police have 'free access' to my files. This is untrue. As you have not indicated why you make this assertion, I am unable to comment further other than to unequivocally deny it.

Mick: Our sources had no reason to lie to us about NT Police access to files in your Dept. An unequivocable denial when the allegation was actually presented, would have been a more credible response.

Peter: You say that you could not have appealed the decision of the ADC as your complaint has never been rejected. You questioned the source of my earlier information. As advised in our letter of 9 March 2001, the source of my information was the ADC.

Mick: Yes. A complaint under S110c of the Act was laid against Respondents in political complaints - who (as Magistrate Lowndes described) "conspired" to victimize me on political grounds and in doing so 'misled the Commission'. Basis of complaint.

Two sworn statements by witnesses were made available to the Commission. The witnesses also made statements to Commission delegates and were prepared to testify in court. This may explain the very recent harassment (post CLP) by NT Police they have experienced.

My complaint has yet to be accepted or rejected (it was laid in 1999) so a belief that I could appeal it - has no logical basis. I assure you I have more than a passing knowledge of the NT ADC rejection procedure.

Mr Stodulka stifled evidence that showed him to be protecting a racist and corrupt Country Liberal Party government. A Public Hearing was cancelled by Tom shortly after this evidence was presented and only two days before the Hearing should have commenced. A tape-recording that proved Respondents were lying about yet another matter was also suppressed.

Changing the subject (as you do) without giving an answer is totally unacceptable. You are supposed to be dealing with my request to investigate and explain why - 'a complaint has not been acted on, within the time allotted under the ADC Act'.

Peter: I note your advice that you would make another statement to police. You assert that I have accepted (Name of Respondent who destroyed our home and stole property) word over yours. I have done nothing of the kind. As my letter of 10 April indicates, the information I have received comes from the NT Police in response to my preliminary inquiries. I have informed you of the information I have received and made a number of suggestions for you to consider.

Mick: You seem to believe my version of events Peter, which makes the NT Police inaction and your refusal to act even more inexcusable. You will note the complaint is set within a political framework that describes systemic NT Police victimization.

My question to you - What would happen to me - if I smashed people's homes apart and stole their property? - has yet to be answered. You will note that Police imprisoned us (the morning after a political action on Australia Day) merely on the hearsay of a Respondent in a political discrimination case. Both charges were eventually dropped.

Peter: I am also aware of the recent decision of Mr Trigg SM in action 20015448, dismissing your appeal and I note his comments in part touch on a number of issues you have raised with this office over time. It would not be proper for me to attempt to answer the generalized questions you have posed at the end of your letter.

Mick: My complaint to you has nothing to do with these other matters. You have been asked to investigate specific complaints in your "independent" role as Ombudsman. That you are even aware of recent legal decisions involving PARIAH, the NT Police and the NT ADC is worrisome.

The celebratory and partisan tone you take is offensive. A decision that essentially exempts NT Police from complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act should alarm someone charged with protecting the People's rights.

The precedent used to quash my Appeal ...(when prison, court manouevres and six Police visits in Darwin failed to stop it being submitted) ...concerned a Somali refugee attacked by some dogs belonging to a Skinhead gang in England. When the victim complained to Police she was charged with animal cruelty, affray and assault.

English Police escaped censure under the Act when it was decided that Police do not come under the "services" definition - in "goods, services and facilities" of the racial discrimination Act.

The State has decided that the Police (traditional - and armed minions - of the State) are somehow exempt from an entire series of discriminatory acts, due to a semantic quibble over the meaning of "services". To an ordinary human being "goods, services and facilities" would seem designed to cover most (if not all) contingencies.

Their use instead - as a means of exemption for Police - is certainly contrary to the Act's intent. As Magistrate Triggs pointed out, there is no intention - to spare the Police the constraints of other citizens - anywhere in the Act.

In short we are supposed to believe that Police are exempt from discriminatory acts - because of some inbuilt semantic quirk (peculiar to Police) in the Act.

Peter: If you believe that you are likely to be charged with an offence, you should seek legal advice.

Mick: Should I be grateful that the Police no longer need to charge me for being a political activist, now that the State has come up with this latest excuse for Police criminality.

I do not forgive the twenty 'visits' of up to ten Police at my isolated home, in order to protect and legitimize a pack of lying, racist criminals, who are still in positions of power on the Cox Peninsula.

Peter: Your repeated comments and references to "Stodulkaism" are offensive and defamatory.

Mick: Then Tom should charge me and force me to publicly defend my allegations.

Peter: Please do not continue to make such comments in your correspondence to me again, or I will refer them to the authorities.

Mick: Please do. The "authorities" still comprise many of the people involved in this racist conspiracy and will no doubt welcome a Public airing of facts.

Peter: I reject your assertions that I am lacking in independence or integrity, or that Mr Stodulka's former employment in this office has any bearing on my consideration of your complaints.

Mick: If you defend the activities of racists, liars and armed vigilantes and then attack the group that has exposed them, you must expect your credibility to suffer.

Peter: I do not intend to engage in further dialogue with you over generalized and offensive allegations of corruption, incompetence or conspiracy.

Mick: Good. Does that mean you will actually investigate my complaints? Magistrate Lowndes and Constitutional Lawyer Ken Parish have both used the term "conspiracy" to describe events. If you find their remarks "offensive" I suggest you "refer them to the authorities," also.

As to "generalized" allegations - only if you ignore our web site which deals in specifics and was submitted to you as evidence.

Peter: It is not my intention to access your website.

Mick: The website contains extensive evidence regarding my complaints to the office of the NT Ombudsman and was my means of avoiding arrest while still reporting a Respondent's criminality to NT Police. Your refusal to consider primary evidence submitted by a complainant is sheer "Stodulkaism". (NT Police do not contest the fact that they were monitoring my website and were aware of this complaint.)

You will find it on http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Police-Protect-Mates.htm

Below is a description of the Government that yourself and Tom worked with and protected from PARIAH...

ABC Online - NT Law Society welcomes a future Labor Govt

The president of the Northern Territory Law Society, John Tippett, says the election of a Labor Government would see the Territory rejoin the Australian legal community.

The society has been at loggerheads with the Territory Government over mandatory sentencing, the controversial appointment of the chief magistrate, and claims by CLP Chief Minister Denis Burke that the justice system is corrupt.

Labor has pledged to remove mandatory sentencing.
Mr Tippett says he is looking forward to life under the new government.
"There has been a lot of sunshine in the Northern Territory, but not a lot of light," he said.

"We've been under quite a dark system of secret government for some time and for people like myself, it's just a sheer pleasure to walk down the street these days."

Mick: Yet another contemptuous ratbag for you to "refer to the authorities".

Three years ago, people told us we would be shot for putting up our anti-racism/CLP posters. So spare us your threats.

I am still homeless, unemployed and treated like a pariah. That is true political "independence" and "integrity" Peter.

I have already appealed Magistrate Trigg's decision and two other complaints rejected by the NT ADC - against the NT Police and former CLP government.

You will note Magistrate Trigg's comment that other legal avenues are open to me. His rejection was not based on evidential grounds. A point you seem to have missed. I assume he is referring to criminal and civil legal options.

For reasons I have made clear, I will continue to labour under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Unless of course the new NT Attorney General believes a Public inquiry or criminal proceedings would be more appropriate.

yours in eternal perserverance

ps

Given the widespread use of new information technology in the Legal system. Is there a reason that court transcripts cost hundreds of dollars, when a floppy or CD would be far cheaper? It is very disempowering to people who can not afford legal assistance... or have I answered my own question?

Mick Lambe: Coordinator PARIAH - People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands